KC LC

Game Creator. Problem solved?

What problem?

Bumped by request.

Bumped by request.

Please report this to the YYG Helpdesk.  It's fine to mention it here, but they are the only ones who can determine whether a threat exists.

So, in your opinion, those sites never did anything wrong by illegally publishing/distributing content, because they "have no means" of verifying the authorship claims.

How can you hold the website responsible for something they cannot do?  If there were a reasonable way for them to verify ownership, then yes, they'd be responsible for doing so.

Since they did nothing wrong, then there's no reason for them to cease their distribution activity - in other words, Mr. Hardy's host should have continued to operate, because they are in no way responsible for the legality concerning the ownership of the content they distribute on behalf of Mr. Hardy. Bravo ! You've just made a point in favour of Mr. Hardy's illicit activities; are you sure you're on the right side of the fence?

What a great example of muddled thinking.   Typical GMC logic.

Look, after the website learns of illegal activity, then they have an obligation to remove it.  And that's exactly what they did:  several members and moderators contacted Hardy's website host, and provided links to the original games.  As a result, they removed that material.

Forgive me, but I thought we were discussing *PRINCIPLE*, not *PROCEDURE* (grab a dictionary, it'll explain the difference). As far as I could tell, you were attacking the very principle of download sites being responsible for what they distribute (regardless of what procedure might be needed)

Quite frankly, I'm not sure what you're discussing.  Your posts don't make sense.    

Principle and procedure ARE closely linked here, in the following simple way:  In order to hold a website responsible for the principle of legal ownership, there must be a procedure for them to identify legal ownership.  Without such a procedure, you are placing an unreasonable expectation on them.

The situation is different for "warz sites" -- many of which knowingly distribute software illegally.  They can't avoid responsibility by pretending "they didn't know" -- especially if the software is well-known.  So they ARE responsible in many cases.  

But that's not the situation for website hosts of small-time sellers like Hardy.  They cannot be held responsible for customers illegal actions -- because they have no way to identify it!  They can only be expected to remove it AFTER they learn of it.  It's a question of "reasonable expectations".

Assigning ethical responsibility requires more careful thinking than you've demonstrated.